Libertarians Supporting TrumpOr: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Donald

If you haven’t read it yet, I recommend you read Walter Block’s article “Libertarians For Trump.” Rather than espousing the disinterested resignation which characterizes most libertarian “support” for various candidates, Block has come out in actual support of The Donald™. And although I disagree with him doing so, I understand his reasoning. Many of the greatest libertarian minds have thrown their support to presidential candidates in the past, with the reasoning that they should support the least statist candidate, or the candidate that they think will do the least harm. The main thrust of Block’s rationale is thus:

Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy.

Block then invites us to read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard, as well we definitely should.

Contrary to what some libertarian purists will tell you, voting is not always aggression, and neither does it legitimize the State. Voting, to the extent that it does anything, can be a defensive measure. There is nothing wrong with voting for someone if you sincerely believe that they would reduce the amount of aggression committed by the State, or if they would not increase the aggression to the degree that another candidate would. But actually supporting a candidate should have to meet a higher standard than merely resigning oneself to voting for them. Supporting a candidate means you mostly agree with them, and as libertarians, the single most important issue to us is how much aggression we think they will use. Block believes that Trump will be less aggressive than the other presidential alternatives. And for what it’s worth, I agree with him. Trump has indicated that he would be less belligerent on foreign policy than Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton,123 and he was a member of the productive class while Bernie Sanders was voting to fund wars.4

Another positive for Trump: neocons despise him.5 That’s a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one. Trump’s indication that he would conduct a less belligerent foreign policy should matter to all libertarians, because as Rothbard noted in “War, Peace, and the State,” the issue of war and peace is “the most vital problem of our time.”6 Randolph Bourne’s famous quote that “war is the health of the state” is a mantra among libertarians, and for good reason. War is always used to inflict death and destruction outside our borders, and erosion of individual liberty within them. Thus, if a presidential candidate gives us a good reason to think they would be less belligerent toward other states, they’ve at least earned some leniency when it comes to less important issues. And when we consider that every current presidential candidate is at least as bad as Trump on domestic issues, he can start to look pretty good by comparison.

That said, Trump’s promise to be a very energetic executive should be galling to any friend of freedom. He has promised to create a database of Syrians,7 ban Muslims from entering the US,8 kick out refugees that are already here,9 bomb the families of terrorists,10 shut down parts of the internet,11 continue to prosecute the war in Afghanistan,12 implement protectionist trade practices,13 and perhaps most infamously, build a giant border wall with Mexico and make them pay for it.14

It should not be news to anyone who loves liberty that playing on fears of external threats is a common tactic used to get people to support the erosion of their liberties. And it is also well known that governments take any power they are ceded and use it beyond the scope it was originally intended. Maybe Trump would be slightly better on foreign policy than the alternatives, but he’s still promising to be a tyrant. As libertarians, we must be careful to not abandon our principles in the interest of political pragmatism by choosing the lesser of two evils. Presidents are still aggressors, and while I can better understand a vote of resignation, arguments for actual support of a candidate must clear some very high hurdles first.

I understand Walter Block’s reasoning behind supporting Trump. Trump sounds like the least terrible candidate on foreign policy. But despite sounding like he’d be less belligerent than the other presidential candidates, it’s not as if Trump has forsworn belligerency altogether. He really is the lesser of multiple evils, that is, if we take him at his word. But the lesser of multiple evils is still evil. He isn’t even that stark of a contrast from Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton, as terrible as they would be. His difference from them is a matter of a few degrees. Donald Trump has promised to initiate a myriad of aggressive activities and coercions, and has thus proven himself to be unworthy of libertarian support.

Altar & Throne

Help Support Altar & Throne

Do you like what you're seeing here? Help support us to keep the content comin'!

Bitcoin:

Paypal:

Affiliate

Many of us here at Altar & Throne have had our horizons expanded through Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, and believe in and endorse this product. Join today to get the education you've never received before!